Thursday, July 13, 2006

blog #3 the pentad

act: Who is right?
scene: Piraeus, house of Cephalus
agent: All those seeking truth
agency: Conversations
purpose: What is the definition of justice?

Using Burke's pentad, the use of five elements represents the drama of the situation. From Book 1 of The Republic, we come to the act, which is the situation that brings up the drama. In this case is the question of "Who is right?" Apparently Socrates is the one seeking truth in finding the purpose, of finding the best answer to the question of what is justice? The scene takes place at the house of Cephalus in Piraeus. The agents involved are all those wanting to know the answer. The agency consists of the conversations that Socrates debates with like Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus. I guess you can say that the drama started up because of Socrates and his curious mind. It seems that Socrates has no idea of what justice is and so he converses with the others and asks their opinions of what justice is. From that point, Socrates explodes with question after question and making the others doubt what they believed. It seemed to show that Socrates has his own knowledge of what justice is or he wouldn't be asking these questions and proving the others wrong. It also shows that Socrates may appear as ignorant and persuades the others in thinking that, or in reality not know anything at all and is simply that intelligent, to make the others look dumb.
Whether if this situation present utopia, I would say that it doesnt. In my opinion, without knowing what the true meaning of utopia is, I think that utopia is described as imaginary, free, and perfect. In this case relating to Book 1, I don't see anything perfect at all. There shouldn't be any arguments, anger (Thrasymachus), or debates at all. In fact, if it was real utopia, you wouldn't have to find the definition of what justice is because there will only be one answer without a second opinion or doubt such as injustice.

3 Comments:

Blogger Tiffany said...

I completely agree with your view on how the debate over justice is not representative of utopia. Even though I'm not sure what the exact definition of utopia is, I feel that harmony is a large part of a utopian society. So I agree that if this were represenative of utopia, there would be no argument at all over the meaning of justice, because all would agree on a single definition of the word.

11:36 AM  
Blogger Simon Says said...

"There shouldn't be any arguments, anger (Thrasymachus), or debates at all."

I do not believe that Utopia necessarily requires the absence of argument, debate, anger, hatred, fighting, war, danger, jealousy, revenge, or anything of that sort. In Utopia, war would be waged to protect Utopia from outsiders and dissenters, and debate would be used to dispel ambiguity and misunderstanding. There is no claim in Utopian thought that each individual be perfect and exactly alike, but merely that the society would work harmoniously (think "we can agree to disagree"). Within that context, debate and disagreement can occur, so long as they have virtuous goals in mind (such as the pursuit of knowledge), and not injury to either party.

3:26 PM  
Blogger Danny said...

I agree with Simon that in a Utopia there doesn't have to be an absence of arguemnt. I guess it is impossible to expect all the people in society to react the same way and think alike. If that happened does that not contratdict the individuality of us as human beings? However, there has to be harmony in a utopian society. The opposite would just be chaos.

8:11 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home